Hi all I am currently using a D50 which, to be honest, I am delighted with. However I am aware that my beloved (camera) is starting to get old and will sadly one day demise. I am thinking of getting a D200 as a second camera. Any opinions would be gratefully received. Would my lenses be compatible (I think they will but could be wrong) I have a 50mm 1.8 prime and a 75-240mm Nikkor. I shoot mainly landscapes and pets. From the reviews I've read the D200 still seems to be an awful lot of camera for the money, (which sadly is a consideration) and it seems to be better built than the D50. Albeit a bit bigger and heavier. I would really appreciate any thoughts.
>I am currently using a D50 which, to be honest, I am delighted with...
And with good reason. I have a D50 and a D300, and for most things, the D50 does just as well, and I still use my D50 a lot.
>... However I am aware that my beloved (camera) is starting >to get old and will sadly one day demise. I am thinking of > getting a D200 as a second camera...
The only thing I'd say here is that any D200 you bought would also be an old camera, and perhaps more intensively used than your D50. So, it would be subject to the same "old age" concerns as your D50.
How many shutter actuations do you have on your D50? I have more than 60,000 on mine and it still works like it did when it was new.
Do you really need a second camera, or could you wait and get a replacement should your D50 quit working.
>...Would my lenses be compatible (I think they will...
You are correct. Any lens compatible with a D50 is also compatible with a D200.
>...From the reviews I've read the D200 still seems to be an awful >lot of camera for the money, (which sadly is a consideration) >and it seems to be better built than the D50. Albeit a bit >bigger and heavier...
I wouldn't discourage you from getting a D200 if you want one, but from the reasons you gave I would say that (1) your D50 may have more life in it than you think, and (2) a D200 will also be an old camera, which seems to work against the reason you say you are considering buying one.
I recommend you buy a used D90 instead. That was my upgrade from the D50 back in 2010. While I love my D50 (first digital SLR, bought in 2005), and still use it a lot for snapshots and casual portraits, the D90 is an order of magnitude better. In every single way.
And, I'll bet you can get one for about the same price as a D200. The D200 is a generation older than the D90, and the image quality and high ISO performance is far inferior. Also, the controls of the D90 are almost identical to the D50, so you will find it a seamless transition in terms of ergonomics. The D90 also works with all Nikkor lenses dating back decades.
The D200 is big, heavy, and old. Why carry that if the IQ is actually inferior to what you can get in a smaller, lighter, more modern package? The D50 is unique in that it has features that later Nikon entry-level DSLR's don't have. It can use AF lenses (Newer lower-level Nikons need AFS to auto-focus). It has a top LCD (which new cheaper Nikons don't). It, like the D90, has pretty much all the external controls anyone needs for most types of photography.
If you could stretch further financially, I'd say a used D7000 is even better. That is a camera that you can use for another five years or more, with little need to upgrade.
While I still have my D200, and it does everything I need wonderfully except low-light sports, it is an old camera. If you are looking to move up to a pro DX body, a D300 or D300S would be the much better choice. I love all the extra buttons on the pro bodies, but they do come with the price of a larger and heavier body, which works fine for me since I have large hands.
If you choose to stay with the same size body, the D90 and D7000 are good options if you are not looking for a new D7100. Going back any further and you are still dealing with old cameras.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Joseph K Seattle, WA, USA
I bought my D200 about eight years ago and have used it in all kinds of climate/weather condition without ever experiencing any problems. Never felt an upgrade to a D300 was worth it, but got a D700 instead. However, I kept using the D200, since I wanted to keep using my 18-200 DX lens. Also, some of my FF lenses perform better on a DX camera. In good light, the IQ of the D200 and the D700 using the same lens is comparable. The ergonomics of the D200, D700 and D800 are similar which makes switching between cameras very easy.
I have found all the different opinions really interesting and enlightening. I guess its a case of you like what you like. And in fact any camera D200, D300, D90 D700 or almost any other Nikon is a great camera
Thank you all for your input. Again I really appreciate it
I have the D200 and know it to be a super camera. One of its strengths is the presence of buttons/switches to achieve so much without needing to access the menus.
If I did not have it already (I am patiently waiting for the D400?), I would get the D300 instead. It has considerable advantages as far as I can tell including the live preview. If you still decide to buy, I would compare the two first.
I always hear from D200/300 users about the abundance of buttons/switches that those "semi-pro" bodies have that the D90/D7000/D7100 supposedly don't have. Most of that is a myth. If you are comparing the D200/300 to D3200, then, yes, there are far fewer external controls on those entry-level bodies. But, for the mid-level cameras, and even the old D50, there really aren't that many more external controls - they are only in a different place.
The D200/300 has the following "Buttons/switches" that the D7000/D7100/D610 does not:
Dedicated AF-On Button Quality Button (really, how often do you change the size/quality of images during a shoot? I never have.) Switch for Metering Mode (D90/7000/7100/600 all have a dedicated button you push and turn the thumb dial. IMO, this "advantage" is offset by the need to push the Mode button and spin the dial on the D300, which can be done on the D90/7000/etc by just spinning the mode dial.)
All have a top LCD (which I really like). All have external buttons for ISO, WB, Compensation, AE Lock, etc. Some of the buttons on the amateur bodies are shared, but they are programmed to prioritize their function logically, depending on if you are in shooting or playback mode.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but my point is that you don't choose a D200/D300 over a D90/D7000/D7100/D6XX because it "has more external controls". That's not true in any great measure. You choose it because it's bigger (maybe you like big bodies), it has higher FPS, it is more durable (though that is debatable with today's semi-magnesium D7XXX series), or it just makes you feel good to use a pro-like body. That said, with the enormous image quality improvements we've seen since the D300s (even in the entry-level bodies), I doubt many working "pros" are still using D300, let alone D200, bodies.
Agreed, On my D200 I would gladly glue the quality button in place...
I am just pondering what "buttons" I like using (bearing in mind I am long sighted and usually cannot see what's on the control panel) and in no particular order:
* The S, Cl, Ch, Self Timer, Mirror Up selector * Exposure Compensation button * Exposure Mode button * Metering selector * AF Area Mode selector * Buttons on Left of LCD (all single function) * The C, S, M, focus selector (newer cameras seem more complicated) * Separate Flash Compensation button (can be used with flash closed)
Regards, Clive Liddell Pietermaritzburg South Africa
Have you considered a D300? I considered a D200 and a D300 and went with the D300. While the D300 was replaced by the D300s, it is an excellent camera albeit it doesn't have video capabilities which isn't a big deal. Pixel wise, you may not see much of a difference between the D200 and D300, you'll notice a difference in the iso's between the two cameras. I've attached a photo taken with my D300. Charlie
Hi Jane, based on your photography subjects, I would suggest a wide angle lens and tripod before a new camera. A used Sigma 10-20mm would be reasonable in price and work very well for landscape. The Nikon 10-24 is probably a little better, due to lower geometric distortion but optically, the Sigma is the best performance for a reasonable. A tripod allows shooting as stopped down apertures and still use base ISO, for longer exposures with more saturated colors. If you really want a new camera, do you want all the external controls or would one that requires going to the menu occasionally be OK? If so, the D5300 is the most sophisticated, highest performance camera Nikon makes lower below $2000, and far simpler to use. It also has the best video function of Nikon cameras. If you want the best balance between cost to acquire and performance, I second Joseph's recommendation of the D90. The D90 is a legend in being beautifully balanced with good performance, ease of use, image quality and a rare camera that has no software or hardware tweaks after release. They are low priced used and is tough. I have well over 100,000 rough conditions shots on mine, it has the same sensor as the D300s but has 1/2 stop better Dynamic range. A step up in Image Quality would be the higher pixel count D7000 which is quite a stunning performer for landscape with 13.9 stops of dynamic range that is only beaten, by a little, by the D600 and D800 full frame cameras. A lot of camera for only $500 used. If you are willing to spend up a little over twice that you can get a D7100 which has a higher resolution sensor like the 24mpx D5300 but with a better auto focus system. That is not needed for landscape but your pets and sport it very appealing. You have many directions to go, but get the lens first, you will see the world through the view finder in a whole other way which expands your range of framing options and perspective Good shooting and good luck
Hi, The D 200 is still a good camera but it is beginning to show it´s age. I would recommend getting a used D7000 if you can manage that. It is a very good camera, smaller and more up to date than the D 200. After the D 7100 was introduced you should be able to get a good D 7000 used for a pretty reasonable price. Best of luck!
Sat 05-Apr-14 11:34 PM | edited Sat 05-Apr-14 11:36 PM by dhrphoto
Used at the base ISO the D200 takes wonderful photos, I loved mine. I also adore my D300s, which is better. Right now I wouldn't be happy with something smaller. When I want/or need to travel really light I use my P7000.
May Your Day Be Happy And Full Of Beautiful Images D.H.R.
My litmus test for upgrades is what can I not do that I need to do? The D200 (a pair of them actually) does all that I need from a digital body. There are better low light options but that's not been an issue for me even working in the news business. Old age is also a non issue unless you have a high actuation count ie. you've used the #### out of it. KEH has D200's in excellent shape and low mileage for under $300. I bought a battery grip and 2 batteries for about $50. They also have CF cards, which you will need, for nearly nothing. You can make an awful lot of images for the $350 or so that a used D200 will cost.
>Thanks all I think I'm going to invest in a new (to me) >d300
How much is the D300? the D300s which is available new is quite expensive compared to other DX bodies. As you are concerned about the age of your D50 which only has about 12,000 actuation. A used D300 may have much more than that and isn't of any assurance that it would outlast your D50. I would think it's better to use the D50 until you started getting some kind of problem then buy a new camera.
I have a D700 & D800 but no way would I part with my D200. Originally got the 200 because it was much more intuitive than the D50 which was OK but meant delving into menus to do most things, I think between the price of a D7100 and a D200 you might as well say "why not jump in and get a D4S". I presume the question was asked for a camera within budget. For the right price I think a D200 would be a step up the ladder to an excellent camera until ready for a bigger jump to the latest technology. But OK as much as you can afford is always the best yardstick.
After all the excellent advice and opinions on here. I have invested in a D300 I honestly think this will do me for ever just about. The advantages it has over the D50 made it at least justifiable. Again many thanks for the excellent advice
Hi Jane, I think you have made a great choice in the D300. I bought one new in Jan. 2008 and have loved it since. About 2 years ago I bought a mint, very low count D700. As I'm now almost 68 yo I think I may just be set for the rest of my life with these two cameras. Kim Western burbs of Chicago